BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR

Subject: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR to like it
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM

Here is an interesting article from Neil Steinberg, a favorite "common sense" moderate commentator from The Chicago Sun-Times from 1/16/04:

Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR to like it


January 16, 2004

BY NEIL STEINBERG SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

My friends at WBEZ always complain that I'm doing them dirty by characterizing National Public Radio as a sink of unexamined squishy knee-jerk liberalism, and suggest that I listen to the station in order to grasp its true glory. But I swear, every time I tune in, however briefly, I'm subjected to another blast of limp-wristed, angsty self-loathing. Just this morning, coming off a week's battle with pneumonia and therefore forgoing my usual brisk, Teddy Roosevelt-like march across the Loop, I flagged a cab at Madison Street for the three-minute ride to the paper.

The cab radio was of course tuned to NPR -- all cab radios are, for the simple reason that NPR offers cabbies their only chance of hearing news from their distant homelands, whether a brief 7-minute glimpse into the cattle problem in Chad and how it's all the fault of the U.S. State Department, or an 11-minute peek at how the popularity of Coca-Cola is killing off local Egyptian sodas, or the full 13-minute visit to a Peruvian village (SFX: maize sizzling, donkeys lowing, wooden door slamming; NARRATOR: "Consuela prepares a dish of cholingoes for her family before beginning her day cutting loose threads at an American-owned textile mill ...'')

As I settled in the back seat, some academic type was breezily explaining how, of course, George W. Bush will be safely in retirement when the bill comes due for all this Mars nonsense while the debt explodes and Social Security collapses in a crumpled heap.

"If Social Security could be fixed for the price of a Mars mission, then it wouldn't be a problem,'' I thought to myself, bracing for the maddening, Chinese water torture I knew to be ahead, the core of my gripe with public radio.

"Hmm,'' murmured the host, inevitably, as all NPR hosts do no matter what wild, sky-is-brown bit of palaver they're being spoon fed.

"Of course Terry, we still await war crime trials for the American fliers who bombed Tokyo ...''

"Hmmm ...''

"Scientific tests have shown that cats resent the idea of being 'owned' by anyone ...''

"Hmmmm ...''

"When we speak of 'crushing the Zionist entity,' it is really a term of endearment ...''

"Hmmmmm ...''

And now our host, Neil Steinberg



Myself, I'd ask, "How come nobody applies the same logic to Kennedy? Nobody says, 'Oh sure, Kennedy committed us to go to the moon and then he up and died and left the hard work to others.'''

Nor do I understand why the political nature of the Mars quest matters. Does anybody stand in front of some gorgeous piece of Italian art and snipe: "Sure, it may look OK. But the only reason Lorenzo de Medici commissioned it was to try to outshine his rivals"? No one cares, ultimately. The Apollo program was without a doubt a bit of Cold War press agentry, yet nobody regrets it (Well, I don't listen to NPR much, so I may have missed some moans of remorse). The assumption that, if we hadn't gone to the moon we'd have used the money to bathe the feet of the poor is just fanciful. We might just as well have bought more napalm.

Thus, saying we shouldn't go because we have other problems is naivete itself. Comparing the two, Mars and Social Security, is like asking how you can afford to eat in a restaurant when you've got a mortgage hanging over your head.

Look at it this way: NASA has been living on celery these last 31 years, flying its little shuttle up and down. Our big problems are still there, aren't they? They haven't all been solved with the extra cash and wrapped in bows and delivered to the Problem Museum for the benefit of future generations. Have they? Maybe if we had an expensive Mars mission going on right now, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Then wouldn't NPR listeners be happy?

Cool day-room viewing in 2025



Frankly, if the government is going to re-gear itself to keeping its enormous senior population in Metamucil, then a mission to Mars might be just the thing to give a little sparkle to our descents into the vale of years. According to Bush's timetable, I'll be about ready to elbow my way toward the Social Security trough by the time we get to Mars, and I know I will appreciate any kind of thrilling distraction, even if it takes away a few spoonfuls of my Nutri-gruel.

Besides, the challenge to humanity is not in the actual getting to Mars -- if we can land a go-kart there, we can land a person, too. The challenge is to see whether NASA can redefine itself along the lean course laid out for it. The Apollo program was proof -- as if any were needed -- that we can accomplish anything if we spend enough. Whether it can be done on a budget is another question.

To be fair to NPR, as the cab approached the paper, they shifted from handwringing over the martian impact on Social Security to the rover Spirit presently exploring the planet. I braced for the worst, but they actually presented the mission as something positive, despite U.S. involvement. I almost stayed in the cab to see how they would twist the story into something vile and conspiratorial: "The Philippines, Panama, Mars -- all part of the same relentless grasp toward U.S. empire, Scott ...'' "Hmmmm ...''

But we were at the paper, so I got out and went to work

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 04:44 PM

A very accurate portrayal of National Pretentious Radio if ya ask me...

If anything, I think it's TOO kind...

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Teresa
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:02 PM

Though I listen to NPR on occasion, you had me rolling on the floor! In my slightly humble opinion, I think a space program would be a damn sight better than high-tech military toys.

yet another reason I don't like those right-wing/left-wing labels. Why can't we have concern for the environment and a space program, too?
Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:07 PM

Funny article. I think the writer has NPR tabbed exactly. People complain that we have no liberal POV on radio. They forget that the taxpayers support the voice of liberalism through NPR.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM

Ha! NPR liberal and anti-Zionist? That's a larf!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:24 PM

"larf?"

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:26 PM

Laff
Laugh

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 05:55 PM

Actually they have a very good and outstanding reasons for going to mars. After all, after what the administration is allowing to happen on environmental matters, we're gonna need somewhere to go!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 06:03 PM

Sad thing about going to the Moon and Mars: Bush as little intention of increasing NASA's budget So they will be cutting other programs. I live near the space coast. People working on one project cannot easily be transferred to a new project. Much of the work is too speciallized, so many of my friends will be out of jobs.

Fuck Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 06:22 PM

Three reasons Bush wants to go to Mars--Ohio--Texas and Florida. As for NPR, I find of late that the commentators have been pressing cover statements more. And disclosing what other jobs the commentators do. For instance, the host of On the Media also writes a column for Ad Age.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 06:50 PM

They've been disclosing those things for years.

NPR is very good in its news coverage--and it provides an excellent view of what a liberal REALLY is. Conservatives resort to name calling and identify this fairness as "liberal." The flip side would mean that unfairness is "conservative." Sounds about right to me!

(You guys are just pissed because "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" pokes fun mostly at conservatives.)

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Teresa
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 06:57 PM

I do think it would be great if Bush went to Mars, though. Very entertaining. ;)
Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 07:38 PM

I'd take up a collection to send him.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Dani
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 07:48 PM

OK, OK. There's plenty of fodder for gripes and laughs.

But I gotta tell you, I didn't really GET the whole damn Mars thing: why it matters, why it's interesting, why I should care, until I listened to Talk of the Nation Science Friday. The unique thing about a lot of NPR programming is its ability to engage, engender enthusiasm, and put things like policy, politics, economics on a human scale.

Dani

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 07:59 PM

I'm all for Bush going to Mars; as for the characterization, I think the columnist is too busy stewing in his own vapours of disdain and anger and protestation to make a reasonable case. Sure, looking at both sides of a story looks limp-wristed. But it cleaves closer to the truth and it avoids arrogance more often than not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 04 - 08:50 PM

Neil Steinberg is a certified, ordained twit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Blackcatter
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 12:16 AM

Bush isn't doing this to impress Flrida. It's all over the news how this is actually throwing a wrench into the NASA works. As for contractors for NASA, which we have plenty of, that won't make much of a differnece. It's the same pie of money, Bush is just cutting differently.

Bush doesn't need to worry about Florida as long as his brother is governor anyhow. At least the person Jeb chose to replace Katherine Harris is at least honest. She's the former mayor of Orlando and is a fairly enlightened conservative.

As for going to Mars - don't people think that it might be nice to figure out how to have a nearly perfect bating avarage when sending robots their BEFORE you send humans? How many have we lost/had problems with so far? Yee Gods!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 09:56 AM

The whole Mars thing is just an attempt to portray George W. Bush as a "visionary". It worked for John Kennedy, so, hell, let's dust it off and see if it can make people think of GWB as a man of vision! Yeah, right! The only thing JFK and GWB have in common is that one had his brain blown out and the other never had a brain to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 10:20 AM

Gee, and here I thought that there was only one NPR, and yuns guys are clearly listening to an entirely different one!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 12:57 PM

That would be to portray Dubya as "visionary" instead of "delusional."

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 01:02 PM

Don Firth said:

"Neil Steinberg is a certified, ordained twit."

Cerified by whom?
Ordained by whom?

Obviously this article makes you uncomfortable and the truth is his widsom makes you squirm I guess. Thanks.
I appreciate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 01:28 PM

Wisdom?

WISDOM??

Steinberg is so biased that he's laughable. That hardly makes me uncomfortable. It disgusts me that he thinks people are gullible enough to believe anything he has to say. Yes, gullible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 04 - 04:46 PM

How can a supposedly intelligent person take seriously a columnist who attempts to trash one of the few fairly reliable news sources in the country by referring to it as a "sink of unexamined squishy knee-jerk liberalism," characterizing it as "limp-wristed, angsty self-loathing," and other such appeals to the emotions of those who use their viscera to think with rather than their brains? The reason NPR is disliked by the Radical Right is that they have the nasty tendency to report stories that said RR would rather people not know. NPR's main failing, in the view of the RR, is that they are not wholeheartedly on board the Bush administration's bandwagon the way most of the other news services are. Unlike the other news services, NPR doesn't do commercials for the Bush administration, or anyone else, for that matter. They report the news, in considerable depth. But that much detail is a little too much for the kind of mind that can only manage to get itself around bumper-sticker style sound-bites.

Steinberg refers to social programs such as Social Security as "keeping its enormous senior population in Metamucil" In fact, he mentions Metamucil a couple of times. Seems he's hung up on the idea. Then he comments about the possibility of eventually "elbow[ing] my way toward the Social Security trough." Good objective expression, that:   "Social Security trough!"

It's pretty clear that he has nothing but contempt for those on Social Security (which, incidentally, includes every American citizen over the age of 65). There are millions of people in this country who, through no fault of their own, depend on what Steinberg characterizes as a "trough" to keep them from having to sleep under a bridge or eat out of Dumpsters. The fact is that these people have paid into the Social Security program all their working lives and, like paying insurance premiums, have the right to expect the return they were promised. That is a moral obligation on the part of the government. But apparently Mr. Steinberg believes that since many elderly or disable folks (equated with pigs at the trough) are no longer able to be as productive as they once were, then—what the hell—they're useless! Toss them into the Dumpster! I don't know how old Steinberg is, but I am reminded of the acne-faced Sixties pundit who said "Never trust anyone over thirty!" On the day that particular twerp turned thirty, the gods had one helluva good laugh!

Steinberg goes on to say, "saying we shouldn't go [to Mars] because we have other problems is naivete itself. Comparing the two, Mars and Social Security, is like asking how you can afford to eat in a restaurant when you've got a mortgage hanging over your head."

Now, there are not many people as in favor of a manned space program as I am. I've been interested in this sort of thing all my life and no one would be more ecstatic at the idea of a manned Mars expedition than me. But Steinberg misses a few minor details here. He says, "if we can land a go-kart there, we can land a person, too." Quite true. If we can land a go-kart on Mars, we could probably dump a corpse there for not much more money. But how about keeping him alive in space for the many months the trip would take, landing him alive, keeping him alive while he's there (Mars ain't exactly Miami Beach), and bringing him back alive?   That could be a bit more pricey than Mr. Steinberg seems to have been willing to go to the effort to work out.

But—Social Security is not the only consideration. Right now, the country is sporting the deepest deficit it has ever had (in only a couple of years, Bush managed to squander the substantial surplus Clinton left), and now Bush wants to spend even more. Instituting a Mars program now is like depleting your savings account, then maxing out a sheaf of credit cards to the point where your children will have to spend years paying off your debt, and then borrowing the money to put a down-payment on a Lamborghini. How naive is that?

But then, that's our president!

Steinberg is an ass.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 10:44 AM

"The only thing JFK and GWB have in common is that one had his brain blown out and the other never had a brain to begin with."

Good Bee-dubya-ell, very good (I better say witty instead of funny)

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 02:13 PM

Firth

First of all, how many columns of Neil Steinberg have you read? One? This One? Living in Chicago, I've been reading him for years and find him entertaining and informative. Neil Steinberg is hardly a member of the Radical Right, but you are obviously way too uniformed to know that.

Secondly, you are somewhat laughable about how seriously you take yourself. An extreme left wing liberal like yourself is just as uncredible and as unbiased as the extreme right wing you and so many others here like to criticize. Steinberg is where many people I believe in this country are at, and that's moderate, on the fence, listen to reality, common sense, non-knee jerking over-reacting middle-of-the roaders.

I think you read into this article way too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 03:18 PM

"one of the few fairly reliable news sources in the country"

There's no such thing as unbiased news.... never has been... never will be... No such thing as 'less biased' either...

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 03:53 PM

Clinton... thats a crock... Though your ignorance seems 'infinite' to me... I'm sure you'll be needing to point out that 'infinite' can not possibly describe a mind that is as finite as yours...

Martin G... I'll tell ya what. You volunteer to go to mars, and I'll support the program... You confessed yourself that you have barely listened to NPR... but you feel 'qualified' to criticize it, and then you go on to 'put Don in his place'... Ummmm, do I need to point out that while you are taking one person's vitriolic impression and calling it gospel... Don has the temerity to research the material he uses... The sources that NPR uses are qualitatively more comprehensive that your 'right wing exascerbator'...

Thread title should read..."put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR to survive the funding cuts that will result...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:16 PM

TTR... only an idiot believes in unbiased reporting...

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:55 PM

"First of all, how many columns of Neil Steinberg have you read? One? This One? Living in Chicago, I've been reading him for years and find him entertaining and informative."

Quite a number of Steinberg's columns actually. I've been familiar with him for some time, but on the strength of your posts, I looked him up on the net and read a batch of his stuff (you can do that, you know, without having to live in Chicago). I find him essentially an pale imitation of Dave Barry. He's shallow, opinionated, full of himself, and nowhere near as funny as Barry. Each to his own taste.

"Neil Steinberg is hardly a member of the Radical Right, but you are obviously way too uniformed to know that."

I don't know what political party Steinberg belongs to, but I judge his position by what he has written. As to how uninformed I am, I'll let that pass and suggest that people read my posts and determine for themselves how uniformed I am by what I have written.

"Secondly, you are somewhat laughable about how seriously you take yourself."

When someone likens people on Social Security to pigs at a trough, I tend to get a bit pissed off by their ignorance and mean-spiritedness, especially when they have access to wide distribution, such as Steinberg has. Perhaps he should try to get by on $700 a month and see just how much Metamucil he can afford after paying rent and buying food. Or perhaps he should take a good dose of Metamucil himself to clear his thinking.

"An extreme left wing liberal like yourself is just as uncredible (sic) and as unbiased as the extreme right wing you and so many others here like to criticize."

I criticize the right-wing because there is plenty to criticize them about. You may not be aware (as you are unaware of so many things) that I used to be a conservative, and even now I could hardly be considered an "extreme left-wing liberal." It is not me who has changed all that much, it's the whole flamin' country. And I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. What used to be considered "right wing" is now considered "centrist," making any formerly centrist or moderately conservative position "liberal" or "left wing." Most Europeans regard American liberals as pretty conservative. And they regard the current crop of American "conservatives" as a bunch of pretty scary reactionaries (but their opinion doesn't count for much, because they're all a bunch of socialists, right?). Try this on your Martin Gibson ukulele: way back, I voted for Barry Goldwater!

I would say that I am a fiscal conservative, but as I see more of the world and learn of its ways, I have become something of a social liberal. It is this latter that makes people such as you characterize me as "extreme left wing." I believe that if a person has worked all his or her life and paid into the Social Security system, they have a right to receive the benefits they have paid for without some mindless twit who's hardly seen enough life to know what the hell is going on, much less write about it, implying that they are somehow receiving something from the government that they don't deserve. I also believe that if a person works, he or she should make enough money to, at the very least, pay rent and buy food.   And yet I know a number of people who are working, but have to sleep in their cars and keep their stuff in a storage locker for $50 a month because they can't afford $750 a month for a one-room apartment (the going minimum rate in this area). They did have good jobs, but said jobs got "off-shored," and they now earn minimum wage by throwing hamburgers out a window at passing cars. Some of these people used to make big money at Microsoft and Boeing, but now programming is being done in India and wing parts are being made in Japan. So they take whatever jobs are available.

"Steinberg is where many people I believe in this country are at, and that's moderate, on the fence, listen to reality, common sense, non-knee jerking over-reacting middle-of-the roaders."

If Steinberg represents the middle-of-the-road in this country, then that road—and the whole country—is headed off a cliff into the Abyss. Just being a "middle-of-the-roader" doesn't mean that Steinberg and those who believe as he does have any sort of lock on the truth. I still say the man is an ass.

I happen to think that some things in life are kind of serious. If the fact that I do take certain things seriously makes me "laughable" as you seem to think, then have yourself a good giggle.

Your welcome.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM

You know usually I apply a certain standard to what I read. If the columnist begins his piece with something like "squishy, knee-jerk liberalism" I figure he's debasing the other writer rather than debating their point. Attacking the author is a well known ploy. I don't bother reading further than that. Same thing for anyone on the other side of the aisle who might scream about the fascists or what they're up to.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Of 10:44 AM aka "Wover"
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 05:36 PM

What? No NPR on Mars! Why that's out of this world! Why, that is un-American. I won't go to Mars if I can't listen to NPR and all the good music, objective commentary, and good discussion.

An NPR Lover (but not a liberal, commie, pinko).

"Wover"

(no, not the Mars Wover!)

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 01 Feb 04 - 10:38 PM

Actually I have a NPR (WBEZ) button on my raido, Firth so I have listened to them. I have other stations to listen to also with different views.

Firth, while you were spending so much time researching and writing to frantically try to rebuke what I said, I was spending some quality Sunday time with my family. Your post was pompous and way too long. You obviously have to much time on your hands for something that hardly matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Alex.S
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 12:12 AM

Tax and Spend, TAX AND SPEND!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 12:49 AM

Martin, your incivility ill-suits you, and leaves me puzzled as to why you feel compelled to resort to boorishness when it is clear you have the mental equipment to exercise discrimination when you see fit to use it. Exercising your boorishness against one of your seniors is even less suiting, especially Don, who demonstrates better thought and better manners at every turn.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 02:22 AM

So you actually have listened to NPR. Then you should know better.

Don't worry about how much time I spent trying to open your eyes to a few things. Most of what I said was already researched, so I didn't have to take time to do it especially for your benefit. Since I often use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to dictate my remarks into the computer and post them. I spent the rest of the morning working on my book, and when my wife came home, I spent much of the day with her. This evening, we had a music group my wife and I belong to in for dinner, and after dinner we spent a couple of hours rehearsing for a presentation the group is giving at North Seattle Community College in a couple of weeks. All in all, a very pleasant day. I'm glad you also were able to spend quality time with your family.

I'm sorry you found my post pompous and way too long. And you're right. Since your mind is already made up, I really was wasting my time.

Have a nice day.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 01:40 PM

My friend here at the office who describes himself as a centrist conservative and I who probably would end up on just the other side of the fence from him describe the current administration as "Don't Tax and Spend Anyway"

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 02:36 PM

Don Firth is one of my seniors? Senior what? I'm not so young either.

Mr. Firth, I'm am glad you have seen the light about wasting your time, and please don't do it for my benefit. I have also gone to school, been around the block, read tons of everything and live life to the fullest.

I also know a good deal when I see one as in the Wal-Mart thread. Your lectures generally will fall on deaf ears, I'm just fine without them.

More than that, I'm genuinely happy, so please don't tell me what kind of day to have.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 03:44 PM

Yes, you really do sound like a happy man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 03:45 PM

I always look for threads in which Don Firth has posted, as I find he has one of the saner political perspectives. Also, he writes well and I enjoy his posts.

Regarding Mars: I can't find the column (it was in a Canadian paper), but I was impressed by a columnist who described the Mars vision as nothing more than a red herring. He believes the real goal is the moon, which the Americans will use as a military base, along with the space platform described in the link below. It's important to remember that despite all the rhetoric about peace, the US is a warlike culture that puts military might first and foremost. IMO!

If you want to give yourself nightmares, read the following article. In case you think it's too extreme, Google "rods from God," and you will find other articles on the same topic.

Rods from God

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 10:52 PM

You know I try not to believe the stereotypical archetype of the other nations that certain people would have us believe (the French as cowards as an example). I hope ya'll in the real world don't think all of us run around playing with guns wondering who we can invade next. I know it's hard to believe but some of us in the U.S.A. are actually sane.

Well...maybe a little neurotic but not pathological!

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 09:18 AM

While I have other things to occupy my time than debunking GUEST,pdc's links, I did check the first factoid I came across in that article: the commander of the 50th Space Wing, a unit which controls observation satellites, is Colonel Suzanne M. Vautrinot, and she has held that assignment since well before that article was written. "Tungston Rods from Space?" A feature of science fiction since at least the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:58 PM

Artbrooks, there is a bit more to the "Rods from God" thing than science fiction.

Bush and members of his administration have talked several times about reinstituting Reagan's SDI ("Star Wars"). One of the projected weapons is a non-explosive-bearing missile called a "flechette." It could be dropped on a target from orbit. The energy dissipated from striking its target with the velocity it would build up from such a fall would provide a most "satisfactory" explosion. Some time back I learned that one of the minds behind this was an old friend of mine, science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle.

Back in the late Fifties and early Sixties, Jerry Pournelle and I used to bend our elbows and wet our noses at the notorious Blue Moon Tavern in Seattle. Jerry is a real bright guy (in spite of being pretty conservative), and we used to have some interesting discussions and arguments. This was before I had a clue that he was even interested in writing science fiction. He lives in the Los Angeles area now, and I haven't seen him since 1985 when he and Larry Niven were in Seattle for a book signing (Footfall).

In addition to collaborating with Larry Niven to write several best-selling science fiction novels, Jerry is a thoroughly grounded scientist—and he is chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy. Used to dropping rocks and stuff in his novels (both Footfall and the earlier Lucifer's Hammer), he suggested the idea, which he originally named "Thor" after the Norse god of thunder. The Pentagon won't say how far along the project, or variants of the idea, may be in development, but it's definitely on the drawing boards.

The weapons system would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate to within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground. No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need. The general principle was applied in Iraq, although at lower velocities and not from orbit, but from high altitudes, to destroy tanks that Saddam's forces shielded near mosques, schools or hospitals. U.S. aviators used concrete practice bombs.

Googling around a bit came up with this:—

The written reports on THOR suggested the projectiles be made of tungsten, or even (for some applications) depleted uranium. They would have seekers built into the nose, and very small guidance fins on the tail, not unlike a large, guided flechette. Striking their targets at near orbital velocity, they could punch through an armored warship's deck, or through the doors of a missile silo. Jerry Pournelle suggested that the seekers could be made to discriminate between various types of armored vehicles, and that they could even hit moving targets.

As I'm sure you are aware, many things we take for granted today started out as science fiction. I'm sitting in front of one, in fact, watching my words appear on the screen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Put a man on Mars, but don't expect NPR
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:36 PM

Without going off in too many tangents I would just address the NPR issue.   Besides NPR I am fortunate to also have the access to WNYC in my area. Forget the signature at the top---a station I am associated with and applaud for its allowing the diversity of opinion and selection of material to air (it is not a news station--more free form--check us out www.wfdu.fm).

SO--back to the original thought. Both NPR and WNYC, happily, have in depth discussions, documentaries, newscasts, and editorials that present all points of view. The diatribes seem mostly on commercial radio---and conservative radio at that.   AM radio is a haven for conservative yowling. FM radio is, basically, commercial "crap" other than the few NPR and Community/College stations that still exist.Thankfully (remember when FM was supposed to be commercial free and cultural---you will give away your age)

The diversity of NPR--today there was talk of teen problems, the lies we have heard about our war in Iraq, thepositive news of new schools being built in an inner city area, and, among other things a wonderful interview (Fresh Air) with an attendee at the Haj and their point of view.   

In addition--for me anyway---there is Garrison Keilor (PRI--not NPR). He knows how to present Dubya in all his glory. But---NPR balances that with opposing points of view. Would that the AM outlets and their conservative screamers do that.

Bill Hahn